1 / 7

Case example Duty fraud

Case example Duty fraud. Carlos Zeyen Anne Grøstad Vice President of EUROJUST Norwegian Liaison Prosecutor to Eurojust National Member for Luxembourg. Background.

jun
Télécharger la présentation

Case example Duty fraud

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case exampleDuty fraud Carlos Zeyen Anne Grøstad Vice President of EUROJUST Norwegian Liaison Prosecutor to Eurojust National Member for Luxembourg

  2. Background • A Norwegian company has exported biodiesel to several EU states as a Norwegian product, which is subject to reduced duty according to the EEC agreement. • The company is under investigation in Norway, suspected for having imported biodiesel from Canada and the US and re-exported it as Norwegian produced. Canadian and US biodiesel is not subject to reduced duty; on the contrary, an extra duty is imposed by the EU states as the production is subsidized in Canada and the US. • Estimated loss of duties for the EU states: € 48 million.

  3. Need for Eurojust assistance: • It was essential to secure evidence at the premises of both the company in Norway, as well as a company in Luxembourg which was linked to the Norwegian company, and the imports and re-export of the biodiesel. • Simultaneous house searches in Norway and Luxembourg were needed in order to avoid that evidence was destroyed or removed. • The time frame was tight:

  4. Short time limits: • 14 August: Question from the Prosecutor in charge of the investigations in Norway: Possible to conduct a house search in Luxembourg on the 28 August?? • Before this, the Prosecutor would have to obtain a court decision, issue the MLA-request and have it translated, • And Luxembourg would need time to decide on the request and plan the search. • In addition: • - Vacation time in Luxembourg, • - A possible legal problem, • - One of the investigators should travel to Luxembourg and be present during the search in order to identify evidence

  5. Short time limits (continued): • 14 August: The Norwegian Liaison Prosecutorcontactedthe National Member for Luxembourg, whomadepreparations for a possible house seach. • 20 August: The translatedrequestwas sent to the National Member for Luxembourg. • 21 August: The National Member for Luxembourg informedtheNorwegian Liaison Prosecutorthattherequestwould be grantedthedayafter. • 22 August: The request was granted by the General Prosecutor of Luxembourg and forwarded to the authority which would conduct the search – and which was already informed.

  6. Short time limits (continued): • 23 August: Direct contactestablishedbetweentheprosecutor/investigators in Norway and theAuthority in Luxembourg whichwouldconductthe house seach. • 26 August: A meetingwas held in Luxembourg betweenthelocalAuthoritiesand the Norwegian investigatorwhowould be present during thesearch. • 28 August: Simultaneous house searches in Luxembourg and Norway. Seizedevidencewas later ontransferred to Norway. Twowitnesseswereinterviewed in Luxembourg. A suspect in Norway wasarrested.

  7. Conclusion: • The requestedassistancewould not have beenpossible in such a shortnoticewithoutclosecooperation. • Close cooperationwould have beendifficult, maybe impossible, to establish in such a short time withoutEurojust.

More Related